Many IP practitioners are misinformed about the function of the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). Here are the top 5 myths about OED ethics investigations and attorney discipline at the USPTO. Myth #1 – The OED Only Cares About Practice Before the USPTO There is a perception that the USPTO only cares about […]
5 Myths About USPTO Ethics Investigations and Disciplinary Complaints Read More »
On August 5, 2016, the USPTO Director issued a Final Order reversing an administrative law judge’s initial decision, which had suspended a practitioner for 18 months. The Final Order held the OED Director violated USPTO precedent and mandatory rules regarding reciprocal discipline—37 C.F.R. § 11.24. The Final Order is significant because it not only confirms the
USPTO Director Reverses ALJ In Disciplinary Case, Rules In Favor Of Attorney Read More »
On July 1, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, IPR2015-01750, 01751 & 01752, ordered patent owner Applications in Internet Time (AIT) to pay petitioner RPX Corp. $13,500 in attorney’s fees as a sanction for violating the Board’s protective order. The Board found sanctions were warranted
PTAB Awards Attorneys’ Fees As Sanction For Protective Order Violation Read More »
Last week, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that significantly altered the legal landscape for proving willful infringement in patent cases. In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s two-part Seagate test for awarding enhanced damages under 35 USC § 284, finding that both the substantive requirement for “objective recklessness”
On May 5, 2016, a Massachusetts state court dismissed Gillette’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty against its former in-house IP counsel who left Gillette and went to work for a competitor, where he used allegedly privileged information gained during his prior employment and helped his new employer analyze and avoid infringement of Gillette’s patents—including
A Dallas appeals court has upheld a trial court’s ruling in favor of Baker Botts, L.L.P. on its former client’s claim for patent malpractice based on the firm’s simultaneous representation of two clients in the same technical field. See Axcess International, Inc. v. Baker Botts, L.L.P., No. 05-14-01151-CV (Tex. App.–Dallas Mar. 24, 2016) (mem. op.)
Texas Court Upholds Baker Botts Patent Malpractice Win Read More »
A patent attorney who was excluded from the USPTO has appealed to the Federal Circuit. By way of background, on July 15, 2015, the USPTO Director entered an order excluding Richard Polidi from practice before the Office. The USPTO Director’s disciplinary action came after the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) filed
Excluded Patent Attorney Appeals To Federal Circuit Read More »
The Federal Circuit’s 2-1 decision yesterday in In re Queen’s University at Kingston resolved a split in the district courts over whether a “patent agent”-client privilege exists independent from the attorney-client privilege. The majority held it does. While the court’s holding provides clarification in this case of first impression, patent agents, their law firm employers,
Narrow Scope of “Patent Agent Privilege” Creates Ethical Traps for the Unwary Read More »
